View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

General and Special Education Teachers' Attitudes towards Evidence-Based Practice

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: General and Special Education Teachers' Attitudes towards Evidence-Based Practice
Language: English
Authors: Lea Rüger (ORCID 0000-0002-6927-7636), David Scheer (ORCID 0000-0002-0534-7869)
Source: Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs. 2025 25(2):323-340.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 18
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Foreign Countries, Special Education Teachers, Regular and Special Education Relationship, Teacher Attitudes, Evidence Based Practice, Test Construction, Questionnaires, Positive Attitudes
Geographic Terms: Germany
DOI: 10.1111/1471-3802.12727
ISSN: 1471-3802
Abstract: In the context of special and inclusive education, applying evidence-based practice (EBP) is important for providing equal access to effective and efficient education for students, regardless of their ability status. However, there is a relevant research-practice gap in this area. To better understand how teachers can be supported using evidence-based interventions and to identify training and development needs, we developed a questionnaire on attitudes towards EBP and piloted it with a sample of 809 teachers in Germany. The factor structure was determined using categorical exploratory factor analysis in half of the sample and then confirmed using categorical confirmatory factor analysis in the other half. Good model fit and factor reliability were observed. The instrument is measurement-invariant between general and special education teachers. As expected, we found more positive attitudes towards EBP among special education teachers. No significant differences were observed between the different age groups. Based on these findings, it can be assumed that the measurement instrument is suitable for use in implementation research, as well as in the evaluation of initial and in-service teacher training programmes. Further studies on convergent, divergent and prognostic validities are necessary.
Abstractor: As Provided
Notes: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/M2ENC
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1466370
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHlKONAa6R2Ew7wf-9z-lluAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDIjspCVRvIH_VSiPuAIBEICBm1CnR_dyEor0D2BPisPXJDA-kU0pGqTUl4a-QdwphSnRoBKdxGzE3tf8mroIUNN7vQ7fSKgbXzR4Q-kLpFDaXBQqEu44UIjHbeJWjiBkCLDpAcT9IZ1Tg_dPbC2wjKY4ThcAPKwQfTvpKG_0efkKSUmuTZ9etMq0XZlfDF-lEiF7757R-ElMc5Dn2C00ziirV4vYiZavKKKeYg1V
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0184320718;0lc01apr.25;2025Apr10.02:52;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0184320718-1">General and special education teachers' attitudes towards evidence‐based practice </title> <p>In the context of special and inclusive education, applying evidence‐based practice (EBP) is important for providing equal access to effective and efficient education for students, regardless of their ability status. However, there is a relevant research‐practice gap in this area. To better understand how teachers can be supported using evidence‐based interventions and to identify training and development needs, we developed a questionnaire on attitudes towards EBP and piloted it with a sample of 809 teachers in Germany. The factor structure was determined using categorical exploratory factor analysis in half of the sample and then confirmed using categorical confirmatory factor analysis in the other half. Good model fit and factor reliability were observed. The instrument is measurement‐invariant between general and special education teachers. As expected, we found more positive attitudes towards EBP among special education teachers. No significant differences were observed between the different age groups. Based on these findings, it can be assumed that the measurement instrument is suitable for use in implementation research, as well as in the evaluation of initial and in‐service teacher training programmes. Further studies on convergent, divergent and prognostic validities are necessary.</p> <p>Keywords: attitudes; evidence‐based practice; factor analysis; questionnaire development; special educational support</p> <hd id="AN0184320718-2">Key points</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184320718-3">Development and validation of a questionnaire</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> A questionnaire was developed to measure teachers' attitudes towards evidence‐based practice (EBP), piloted with 809 teachers in Germany and validated through exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, showing good model fit and reliability.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0184320718-4">Three key dimensions identified</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Our analyses identified three subscales: 'Attitudes towards evidence‐based practice' (Attitudes), 'Willingness to learn about and use scientific evidence' (Informing) and 'Willingness to conduct independent research on and evaluate scientific evidence' (Researching). These dimensions provide a comprehensive framework for understanding and enhancing teacher engagement with EBP.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0184320718-5">Positive attitudes among special education teachers</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Special education teachers showed more positive attitudes towards EBP compared to their general education counterparts.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0184320718-6">Utility for training and implementation research</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> The validated questionnaire is suitable for use in implementation research and the evaluation of teacher training programmes, helping to identify training needs and support the effective adoption of EBP in educational settings.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0184320718-7">INTRODUCTION</hd> <p>In recent years, evidence‐based practice (EBP) has gained prominence as a crucial approach in education, aiming to enhance teaching effectiveness and student outcomes by integrating the best available research evidence with professional expertise (Hattie, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref1">28</reflink>]). This approach is particularly important in both general and special education, where tailored strategies and interventions are essential for addressing diverse student needs and ensuring equitable learning opportunities.</p> <p>In Germany, the educational landscape is increasingly embracing EBP to improve pedagogical practices and educational outcomes. In this study, we present the first psychometric evaluation of a questionnaire measuring attitudes towards EBP in general and special education and also discuss the differences between teachers with and without special education.</p> <p>The German education system is characterised by its highly selective school system with a clear division into various tracks, each corresponding to a different type of school (see: Kocaj et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref2">37</reflink>]; Sansour & Bernhard, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref3">57</reflink>]; Scheer et al., [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref4">58</reflink>]). In Germany, education is managed at the federal level, resulting in notable differences across states. However, most states follow a uniform primary school system that lasts 4 years. In most federal states, students proceed to either secondary schools (Grades 5–10) or grammar schools (Grades 5–12/13) after fourth grade. Some states further classify secondary schools into lower secondary schools (Grades 5–9) and intermediate secondary schools (Grades 5–10). Additionally, many federal states provide comprehensive schools (known as Gemeinschaftsschulen) that integrate both secondary and grammar education. Students with special educational needs can attend special schools tailored to their specific areas of support (such as learning disabilities, intellectual disabilities, physical and motor disabilities, visual impairments, hearing impairments, speech disorders or emotional/behavioural disorders) or receive inclusive education at mainstream schools. The latter is usually provided by primary (lower) secondary and comprehensive schools.</p> <p>The initial teacher training in Germany is also organised according to the aforementioned school types (see Terhart, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref5">61</reflink>]). Typically, there are distinct degree programmes for primary, secondary, grammar and special needs education teachers. Their university training programme ends with a master's degree. Meanwhile, while primary and secondary school teachers focused more on pedagogy and didactics during their studies, grammar teachers tended to concentrate more on subject‐specific studies. The degree programme for special needs teachers is notably different from other teacher training programmes, as it emphasises special needs education and its related disciplines, such as psychology, sociology and medicine. Unlike in most countries, special needs education in Germany is not typically a postgraduate course for qualified teachers, but a separate undergraduate degree programme. Therefore, we can use the term different teaching professions to differentiate between teachers with special education training (special education teachers) and those without special education training (general teachers).</p> <p>In this study, we aimed to evaluate whether teachers from different teaching professions, with and without special education training, have differing attitudes towards EBP. To the best of our knowledge, no standardised measurement exists for this topic. Thus, we developed a questionnaire and performed a psychometric analysis on it.</p> <hd id="AN0184320718-8">EBP in general and special education</hd> <p>In recent years, there has been discourse on aligning special needs education more closely with the findings of empirical research (EBP). This is linked to the demand that teachers should not limit their teaching and support on traditional best practices, but use methods and measures whose effectiveness has been scientifically proven. In this context, EBP goes well beyond the application of EBPs (Cook et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref6">12</reflink>]) and refers to the full integration of the best available empirical evidence, the professional expertise of the practitioner and the needs, preferences and personal and cultural backgrounds of the addressee (American Psychological Association [APA], [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref7">4</reflink>]; Sackett et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref8">55</reflink>]). This is discussed even more controversially in the context of inclusive education (e.g., Laubenstein & Scheer, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref9">42</reflink>]). In both international and German contexts relevant to this study, the question is how EBP should be designed and what criteria should be applied to evidence‐based interventions (Boyle et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref10">8</reflink>]; Cook et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref11">12</reflink>]; Dekker & Meeter, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref12">16</reflink>]; Forness, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref13">22</reflink>]; Grosche, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref14">26</reflink>]; Hartke et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref15">27</reflink>]; Hillenbrand, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref16">32</reflink>]; Hornby, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref17">34</reflink>]; Williamson et al., [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref18">67</reflink>]). Simultaneously, EBP is also questioned from either a science‐theoretical or normative perspective (Ahrbeck et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref19">2</reflink>]; Dederich, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref20">15</reflink>]; Wu et al., [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref21">68</reflink>]). EBP should encourage teaching quality and effectively contribute to (inclusive) school development. In this context, the topic extends beyond special needs teachers to include general teachers as well. Consequently, it is crucial to examine how the discussion is received in practice by teachers. First, we examined teachers' attitudes as an important component.</p> <p>The successful implementation of EBP in daily school setting is likely to depend significantly on teachers' attitudes. According to the theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref22">3</reflink>]), attitudes—defined as 'an overall evaluation of an object based on cognitive, affective, and behavioural information' (Maio & Haddock, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref23">45</reflink>], p. 4)—are crucial in guiding actions. Teachers' pedagogical attitudes are vital to the quality and outcomes of teaching (Baumert & Kunter, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref24">6</reflink>]; Fives & Buehl, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref25">21</reflink>]; Helmke, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref26">30</reflink>]). Current models consider these attitudes as essential components of professional competencies (Baumert & Kunter, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref27">6</reflink>]). From our perspective, attitudes are particularly significant because they are strong predictors of actual behaviour. Therefore, attitudes towards EBP can be used to predict the likelihood of teachers implementing the concept in their practice. We contend that the emphasis on application‐oriented implementation research in the context of evidence‐based educational support, highlighted in the German‐speaking context by Kuhl et al. ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref28">39</reflink>]), should be broadened to include an examination of teachers' attitudes towards EBP.</p> <hd id="AN0184320718-9">Teachers' knowledge of and attitudes towards educational research and EBP</hd> <p>In the context of implementing EBP in schools, research has mainly focused on the knowledge of evidence‐based support measures and competencies in the selection and evaluation of studies. Prospective teachers often exhibit limited knowledge and skills in EBPs, frequently relying on ineffective practices and struggling to distinguish between effective and ineffective interventions (Hintz & Grünke, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref29">33</reflink>]). Furthermore, they face challenges when selecting and evaluating information to construct evidence‐based arguments (Trempler et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref30">63</reflink>]). Compared to students in other disciplines, prospective teachers demonstrate lower self‐reported research skills (Besa et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref31">7</reflink>]).</p> <p>Additionally, neuromyths (e.g. learning styles, myths and multiple intelligences) and misconceptions in educational psychology are prevalent among teachers (Dekker et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref32">17</reflink>]; Dündar & Gündüz, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref33">19</reflink>]; Menz et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref34">46</reflink>]). Even teachers with higher knowledge of brain function are not immune to believing in neuromyths (Dekker et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref35">17</reflink>]) and presenting empirical evidence alone often does not resolve these misconceptions (Menz et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref36">46</reflink>]). Nonetheless, teachers with a more robust knowledge base are less likely to believe in neuromyths (Dündar & Gündüz, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref37">19</reflink>]). Erroneous beliefs are particularly problematic because they can influence teachers' trust in evidence and shape their initial evaluations. Teachers are more likely to trust evidence that aligns with their prior beliefs and distrust evidence that contradicts them (Schmidt et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref38">59</reflink>]). Thus, the issue does not lie in a general distrust of empirical research but in the filtering and distortion of research findings through flawed beliefs and presuppositions (Schmidt et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref39">59</reflink>]).</p> <p>Moreover, prospective teachers often perceive research as an activity conducted by others rather than engaging with it themselves. They tend to prioritise personal experience and practical knowledge over scientific evidence (Gitlin et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref40">25</reflink>]). Consequently, it is not surprising that teachers rarely apply educational research findings to EBP (Hetmanek et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref41">31</reflink>]), opting instead for preconceived information and informal sources (Williams & Coles, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref42">66</reflink>]). According to van Schaik et al. ([<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref43">64</reflink>]), barriers to the utilisation of academic knowledge in teaching include a lack of access to academic knowledge, insufficient individual skills, negative attitudes towards research knowledge and organisational constraints. They emphasise enhancing the conditions for academic knowledge utilisation, such as improving accessibility, fostering positive attitudes and enhancing individual skills and organisational support.</p> <p>Although teachers are generally willing to use research and standardised test results to improve their practice (Ingram et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref44">35</reflink>]), student performance data are rarely used in decision‐making processes and are often considered irrelevant by many teachers (Parr & Timperley, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref45">51</reflink>]). Contributing factors include lack of time, lack of confidence in assessing research‐based information and inadequate skills in interpreting student performance data (Parr & Timperley, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref46">51</reflink>]; Williams & Coles, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref47">66</reflink>]).</p> <p>Attitudes and beliefs towards EBP have been extensively studied in the healthcare sectors, as well as in nursing education (e.g., Aarons, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref48">1</reflink>]; Frantz & Heinrichs, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref49">23</reflink>], Köpke et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref50">38</reflink>]; Kühne et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref51">40</reflink>]; Paridon & Richter, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref52">50</reflink>]; Ritschl et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref53">53</reflink>]). However, there is comparatively less research on teachers' attitudes towards EBP in the field of (special) education. Diery et al. ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref54">18</reflink>]) found that university teacher education lecturers are generally convinced of the value of EBP and frequently apply evidence in their teaching and learning. Additionally, lecturers with more experience demonstrate more positive attitudes and greater use of evidence than their less‐experienced colleagues. Georgiou et al. ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref55">24</reflink>]) explored the attitudes of 12 teacher educators towards EBP, focusing on perceived implementation challenges. Despite their positive attitudes, thematic analyses showed significant challenges in translating the research findings into practice. Atas et al. ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref56">5</reflink>]) used semi‐structured interviews to explore special education teachers' views on EBPs for students with autism. The study found that while these teachers had a superficial understanding and limited knowledge of EBP, they acknowledged its importance and effectiveness. Further insights into teachers' attitudes towards educational research and EBP were revealed by the PISA 2012 National Extension Study in Germany. This study demonstrated that teachers who felt they lack the skills and time to conduct research were more likely to consider educational research findings irrelevant to their practice. Although access to scientific sources and familiarity with research methods and statistics had only small direct effects on perceptions of research relevance, increased familiarity with research methods and statistics was associated with reduced concerns about the ability and time required to engage in research. Thus, improving access to scientific sources and familiarity with research methods and statistics can mitigate perceived barriers to engaging in research (Thomm et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref57">62</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0184320718-10">Research questions</hd> <p>To the best of our knowledge, no study has been conducted on the attitudes of general and special needs teachers towards EBP; consequently, there is no validated instrument to measure these attitudes. The extent to which findings from other fields can be applied to school practices remains unexplored. Therefore, we aimed to conduct a survey to assess the attitudes of special needs and general teachers towards EBP. Consequently, we developed a questionnaire for this purpose. This study is the first to evaluate this questionnaire. Specifically, this study aimed to investigate the following:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Q1 The factor structure of the developed questionnaire;</item> <p></p> <item> Q2 Whether the questionnaire measures invariantly between general and special needs teachers;</item> <p></p> <item> Q3 The internal consistency of the subscales from the factors;</item> <p></p> <item> Q4 How the subscales are related to each other; and</item> <p></p> <item> Q5 How special needs and general education teachers differ in terms of attitudes.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0184320718-11">Construction of the questionnaire</hd> <p>To construct the questionnaire, we adhered to the understanding of EBP and utilised a three‐component model of attitudes (Rosenberg & Hovland, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref58">54</reflink>]). The questionnaire comprised positive and negative statements addressing the affective, cognitive and behavioural components of attitudes (see Table 1). Behavioural aspects were measured using items of varying difficulty: from straightforward application‐oriented aspects (e.g. 'If my school provided evidence‐based methods/materials, I would align my teaching/support with empirical evidence') to more complex activities (e.g. 'I am willing to search for scientific studies to assess the empirical evidence of methods/materials'). To avoid bias due to different interpretations of the term 'evidence‐based practice' used in the items, we included an explanation of the underlying understanding of EBP in the questionnaire instructions (see electronical supplement ESM 4).</p> <p>1 TABLE Construction of the questionnaire.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Attitudes component</th><th align="left">Valence</th><th align="left"># Items</th><th align="left">Example</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Affective</td><td align="left">Positive</td><td align="left">3</td><td align="left">The thought of aligning my teaching/support with empirical evidence makes me feel confident</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Negative</td><td align="left">3</td><td align="left">When I think about aligning my teaching/support with empirical evidence, I worry about being overwhelmed</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Cognitive</td><td align="left">Positive</td><td align="left">4</td><td align="left">Aligning teaching/support with empirical evidence improves students' learning outcome</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Negative</td><td align="left">2</td><td align="left">The effort required to align teaching/support with empirical evidence is greater than the expected benefit</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Behavioural</td><td align="left">Positive</td><td align="left">8</td><td align="left">In pedagogical decisions, I am open to integrating current empirical research findings with my own experience and the needs and preferences of my students</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The comprehensibility of the items and explanations provided for EBP was tested with a small group of teachers in April 2022. All the participants developed a common understanding of EBP based on their instructions. Minor adjustments regarding language aspects were made, including the reformulation of some negatively connoted terms into more socially accepted language to avoid response bias (e.g., replacing 'anxious' with 'concerned'). These revisions resulted in a pool of 20 items (Table 3) that were used in this study. Participants rated the items on a five‐point scale (0 = 'strongly disagree', 1 = 'somewhat disagree', 2 = 'partially agree', 3 = 'mostly agree', 4 = 'strongly agree').</p> <hd id="AN0184320718-12">METHODS</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184320718-13">Open science statement</hd> <p>We report how we determined the sample size, excluded data, all manipulations and all measurements. All materials, data, analysis syntax and electronical supplements (ESM 1–4) are available at the Open Science Framework (OSF) (10.17605/OSF.IO/M2ENC). For all statistical tests, we reported the test statistic and exact <emph>p</emph>‐value and all effect size measures using a 95% confidence interval.</p> <hd id="AN0184320718-14">Ethics statement</hd> <p>This study is a cross‐sectional survey conducted without experimental manipulation or storage of sensitive personal data. To conduct the study, we excluded patients, vulnerable persons and minors. Based on the guidelines of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) and the local ethics board, this study is not subject to ethical approval due to the following reasons: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref59">1</reflink>) participants are neither minors nor vulnerable persons; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref60">2</reflink>) there is neither experimental manipulation nor deception about the purpose of the study; (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref61">3</reflink>) participants are not exposed to any health risks or physical or psychological stress; and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref62">4</reflink>) no sensitive personal data are stored.</p> <p>However, as we recruited teachers from public schools, in two states we needed permission from the state school authorities. Permission was granted to conduct the survey.</p> <hd id="AN0184320718-15">Procedure</hd> <p>The study was conducted via an online survey, from June to August 2022, using EFS Survey software with a cross‐sectional design. In the two federal states of Germany (Baden‐Württemberg and Rhineland‐Palatinate), formal permission to conduct the survey was obtained from the respective school supervisory authorities. In Hesse, only a notification of the survey was necessary and in North Rhine‐Westphalia, permission was obtained from the school principals.</p> <p>All general and special education schools in these four federal states were contacted via email requesting that they forward the invitation and the survey link to teachers for participation. At the beginning of the survey, all the participants were informed of the voluntary nature of their participation, anonymity and data protection measures. All participants agreed to participate and consented to data processing before proceeding with the survey.</p> <hd id="AN0184320718-16">Sample</hd> <p>First, the sample size was not determined a priori. A convenience sample was conducted via open invitation recruitment. At the beginning of the survey, the participants were asked to generate and provide an eight‐digit participant code following the instructions. A total of 809 teachers participated in the survey and provided unique and complete participant codes. Cases with more than 5% missing values were excluded from the analysis, leaving an adjusted sample of <emph>N</emph> = 550 (450 females and 3 non‐binary). Only 32.7% of the participants were special education teachers, which might introduce bias into the group comparisons. However, according to the Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs of the Länder in the Federal Republic of Germany, special education teachers are overrepresented in our sample, as only 10%–20% of the full‐time equivalents of teachers in Germany are special education teachers (Kultusministerkonferenz [KMK], [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref63">41</reflink>]). The distribution of sociodemographic data is shown in Table 2. The factors that may influence attitudes towards EBP include age, special education training and school type. (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref64">1</reflink>) Younger teachers might be more familiar with EBP due to recent changes in educational discourse and teacher training compared to their older counterparts. (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref65">2</reflink>) Given the broad discourse on EBP in Germany across all levels of special education practice in recent years, teachers with special education training may have more differentiated attitudes towards EBP. (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref66">3</reflink>) The final point may also lead to differences between teachers from different school types. Furthermore, the influence of gender on attitudes towards EBP cannot be ruled out.</p> <p>2 TABLE Sample characteristics total and by subsamples.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left">Total</th><th align="left">Subsample</th><th align="left"><italic>p</italic></th></tr><tr><th align="left">CCFA</th><th align="left">CEFA</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">n</td><td align="left">550</td><td align="left">275</td><td align="left">275</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Age (%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">20–29 years</td><td align="left">31 (5.6)</td><td align="left">15 (5.5)</td><td align="left">16 (5.8)</td><td align="left">0.999</td></tr><tr><td align="left">30–39 years</td><td align="left">125 (22.7)</td><td align="left">63 (22.9)</td><td align="left">62 (22.5)</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">40–49 years</td><td align="left">172 (31.3)</td><td align="left">85 (30.9)</td><td align="left">87 (31.6)</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">50–59 years</td><td align="left">171 (31.1)</td><td align="left">86 (31.3)</td><td align="left">85 (30.9)</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">60 years or older</td><td align="left">51 (9.3)</td><td align="left">26 (9.5)</td><td align="left">25 (9.1)</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Gender (%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Non‐binary</td><td align="left">3 (0.6)</td><td align="left">1 (0.4)</td><td align="left">2 (0.7)</td><td align="left">0.842</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Male</td><td align="left">91 (16.7)</td><td align="left">46 (16.9)</td><td align="left">45 (16.5)</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Female</td><td align="left">450 (82.7)</td><td align="left">225 (82.7)</td><td align="left">225 (82.7)</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Teaching profession = special needs education (%)</td><td align="left">180 (32.7)</td><td align="left">90 (32.7)</td><td align="left">90 (32.7)</td><td align="left">1.000</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Type of school (%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Primary school</td><td align="left">229 (41.6)</td><td align="left">118 (42.9)</td><td align="left">111 (40.4)</td><td align="left">0.681</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Combined primary and secondary school</td><td align="left">21 (3.8)</td><td align="left">9 (3.3)</td><td align="left">12 (4.4)</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Secondary school</td><td align="left">65 (11.8)</td><td align="left">34 (12.4)</td><td align="left">31 (11.3)</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Grammar school</td><td align="left">11 (2.0)</td><td align="left">3 (1.1)</td><td align="left">8 (2.9)</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Comprehensive school</td><td align="left">47 (8.5)</td><td align="left">24 (8.7)</td><td align="left">23 (8.4)</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Special school</td><td align="left">177 (32.2)</td><td align="left">87 (31.6)</td><td align="left">90 (32.7)</td><td align="left" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note: p</emph> = significance of the difference between the subsamples (Fisher's exact test).</p> <p>2 Abbreviations: CCEFA, subsample for categorical exploratory factor analysis; CCFA, subsample for categorical confirmatory factor analysis.</p> <p>The largest age cohorts were the groups 40–49 years (31.3%) and 50–59 years (31.1%), followed by the group 30–39 years (22.7%). Teachers from the special education profession comprised 32.7% of the participants. The largest group comprised teachers from primary schools (229 participants, 41.6%), followed by those from special schools (<reflink idref="bib177" id="ref67">177</reflink>, 32.2%). The smallest group comprised teachers from grammar schools (<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref68">11</reflink>, 2.0%). Most participants were female (<emph>n</emph> = 450; 82.7%).</p> <p>The two subsamples (see Table 2) for exploratory (CEFA) and confirmatory (CCFA) factor analyses were analysed by randomly assigning half of the total sample to one subsample and the other half to the other, stratified by teaching profession, age and gender.</p> <hd id="AN0184320718-17">Measurements</hd> <p>The questionnaire comprised three sections. The first section focused on the participants' sociodemographic background data (gender, age, work experience, education, state and school type). The second section briefly explained the underlying definition of EBP, followed by items that tend to elicit attitudes towards EBP. As another project was attached to the survey, a questionnaire developed by Hintz and Grünke ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref69">33</reflink>]) was used in an identical form in the third section. The first two sections of the questionnaire were available in the OSF.</p> <hd id="AN0184320718-18">Data analysis</hd> <p>Our analysis strategy involved three primary steps: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref70">1</reflink>) assessing the dimensionality of our measurement; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref71">2</reflink>) analysing the reliability (internal consistency) of the (sub‐)scales; and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref72">3</reflink>) evaluating the intercorrelations of the scales and differences between special education and general education teachers. This approach required factor analysis, followed by reliability analysis, correlation analysis and multivariate analysis of variance to compare the two groups of teachers. The following section, along with Figure 1, provides an overview of the rationale behind these analyses, with more technical details presented in Table S1.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/0LC/01apr25/jrs312727-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="jrs312727-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Data analysis strategy." /> </p> <p></p> <p>These analyses were based on the scale development steps described by Netemeyer et al. ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref73">48</reflink>]) and followed the assumption that socio‐psychological constructs, such as attitudes, are latent (unobserved) variables that explain the covariance between manifest (observed) variables (Haynes et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref74">29</reflink>]). This means that the manifest items in a questionnaire are observable indicators of the latent variables (Loehlin & Beaujean, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref75">43</reflink>]).</p> <p>Before analysing the scale, it was necessary to check whether the items provided sufficient information to differentiate between people with higher and lower characteristic values. In terms of classical test theory, this was assessed via item difficulty, <emph>P</emph> (Kelava & Moosbrugger, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref76">36</reflink>]), defined as the proportion of participants solving the item. For the rating scales, this was split into the average item score divided by the number of rating categories. The items were not too difficult (<emph>p</emph> < 0.2) or too easy (<emph>p</emph> > 0.8). Another criterion for item suitability is relative information content <emph>H</emph> (Eid & Schmidt, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref77">20</reflink>]), which ranges from 0 (all participants have selected the same response category) to 1 (all response categories occur equally frequently). The closer <emph>H</emph> is to 1, the better the item can differentiate between different participant characteristics.</p> <p>The second step of our analysis was to evaluate dimensionality, such as determining how many latent factors underlie the test and the items that contribute to each latent factor. We applied two common procedures to assess the dimensionality (Loehlin & Beaujean, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref78">43</reflink>]; Netemeyer et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref79">48</reflink>]): exploratory factor analysis for categorical data (CEFA) was applied in the early stages of scale construction to identify the dimensionality and underlying factors of a construct, while confirmatory factor analysis for categorical data (CCFA) was applied to test how well a hypothesised factor structure fits the data. As CEFA and CCFA share the same underlying statistical approach, it is common to apply split‐sample cross‐validation (Lorenzo‐Seva, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref80">44</reflink>]; Osborne & Fitzpatrick, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref81">49</reflink>]). Consequently, in one‐half of the participants, we conducted a CCFA to cross‐validate the findings from the CEFA. The sample was split into two subsamples using a stratified randomisation process to ensure an equal distribution of relevant participant characteristics.</p> <p>The developed questionnaire should be able to compare attitudes towards EBP between special and general education teachers. Therefore, it was essential to ensure that the measurement model is invariant in both groups (Netemeyer et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref82">48</reflink>]). This was evaluated by applying a multi‐group confirmatory factor analysis with stepwise constraining parameters equal across groups (Widaman & Reise, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref83">65</reflink>]). If the model fit does not significantly deteriorate from step to step, measurement invariance (MIV) is assumed:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Step 1 (configural invariance): Only the thresholds are constrained to be equal in both groups.</item> <p></p> <item> Step 2 (metric invariance): The thresholds and loadings are constrained to be equal across groups.</item> <p></p> <item> Step 3 (scalar invariance): The thresholds, loadings and intercepts are constrained to be equal across groups.</item> </ulist> <p>According to Chen ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref84">10</reflink>]) and Cheung and Rensvold ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref85">11</reflink>]), a deterioration of |ΔCFI| ≤ 0.02 and |ΔRMSEA| ≤ 0.015 can be accepted to assume MIV. Additional information on MIV is the differentiated item function (DIF) analysis (see Schwab & Helm, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref86">60</reflink>]), in which we compared the item difficulty obtained from a graded response model (Samejima, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref87">56</reflink>]) across groups.</p> <p>After establishing a measurement model for the questionnaire, the reliability of the measurement was evaluated (Netemeyer et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref88">48</reflink>]). We applied two approaches: The first is a more classical approach to estimate reliability via internal consistency using coefficient α (Cortina, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref89">13</reflink>]; Cronbach, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref90">14</reflink>]). However, because this may be biased for multidimensional measures, we also applied composite reliability, which Brunner et al. ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref91">9</reflink>], 229) describe as 'the total amount of true score variance in relation to the total scale score variance'.</p> <p>Finally, we analysed how the subscales of the questionnaire are interrelated and whether any differences exist between special education and general teachers. Group comparisons were conducted by applying multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), as we had multiple dependent variables (e.g. the subscales of the questionnaire), which would lead to Type I error inflation when conducting multiple t‐tests.</p> <p>All analyses were performed using R (version 4.2.2; R Core Team, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref92">52</reflink>]). A full list of all packages used is provided in the electronical supplements (ESM 3).</p> <hd id="AN0184320718-20">RESULTS</hd> <p>A total of 550 participants were included in the analyses, 455 (82.7%) of whom completed the questionnaire. All assumptions for multiple imputations were met (see Table S1 for details of the data analysis) and we estimated all missing values using the multiple imputation algorithm. As Table 3 shows, all the items had a good to acceptable item difficulty of 0.2 < <emph>p</emph> < 0.8. The relative information content <emph>H is</emph> also predominantly in the high‐to‐very high range, indicating a good distribution of the response categories. The mean values ranged from <emph>M</emph> = 1.54 (Item 19) to <emph>M</emph> = 3.21 (Item 15). Overall, this indicates that our items were adequate for further analysis.</p> <p>3 TABLE Descriptive statistics and item characteristics.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Item</th><th align="left"><italic>N</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="left">SD</th><th align="left">SE</th><th align="left"><italic>P</italic></th><th align="left">Response category</th><th align="left"><italic>H</italic></th><th align="left">CEFA</th><th align="left">CCFA</th><th align="left"><italic>r</italic><sub>it</sub></th></tr><tr><th align="left">0</th><th align="left">1</th><th align="left">2</th><th align="left">3</th><th align="left">4</th><th align="left">(1)</th><th align="left">(2)</th><th align="left">(3)</th><th align="left"><italic>h</italic><sup>2</sup></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Attitudes towards evidence‐based practice</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1. The thought of aligning my teaching/support with empirical evidence makes me feel confident.</td><td align="left">550</td><td align="left">2.64</td><td align="left">0.97</td><td align="left">0.0415</td><td align="left">0.53</td><td align="left">0.035</td><td align="left">0.075</td><td align="left">0.289</td><td align="left">0.422</td><td align="left">0.18</td><td align="left">0.83</td><td align="left">0.821</td><td align="left">0.042</td><td align="left">−0.030</td><td align="left">0.70</td><td align="left">0.901</td><td align="left">0.83</td></tr><tr><td align="left">2. The prospect of being able to rely on evidence‐based teaching and support makes me feel relieved.</td><td align="left">550</td><td align="left">2.50</td><td align="left">1.08</td><td align="left">0.0462</td><td align="left">0.50</td><td align="left">0.055</td><td align="left">0.125</td><td align="left">0.26</td><td align="left">0.387</td><td align="left">0.173</td><td align="left">0.90</td><td align="left">0.821</td><td align="left">−0.044</td><td align="left">0.012</td><td align="left">0.64</td><td align="left">0.820</td><td align="left">0.81</td></tr><tr><td align="left">3. The possibility of helping my students through evidence‐based teaching and support motivates me.</td><td align="left">550</td><td align="left">2.74</td><td align="left">1.00</td><td align="left">0.0427</td><td align="left">0.55</td><td align="left">0.031</td><td align="left">0.082</td><td align="left">0.235</td><td align="left">0.422</td><td align="left">0.231</td><td align="left">0.84</td><td align="left">0.768</td><td align="left">0.194</td><td align="left">−0.093</td><td align="left">0.75</td><td align="left">0.885</td><td align="left">0.84</td></tr><tr><td align="left">4. (−) The thought of aligning my teaching/support with empirical evidence makes me feel insecure.</td><td align="left">550</td><td align="left">2.79</td><td align="left">1.11</td><td align="left">0.0471</td><td align="left">0.56</td><td align="left">0.024</td><td align="left">0.145</td><td align="left">0.162</td><td align="left">0.36</td><td align="left">0.309</td><td align="left">0.87</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">5. (−) When I think about aligning my teaching/support with empirical evidence, I worry about being overwhelmed.</td><td align="left">550</td><td align="left">2.28</td><td align="left">1.27</td><td align="left">0.0542</td><td align="left">0.46</td><td align="left">0.111</td><td align="left">0.171</td><td align="left">0.245</td><td align="left">0.271</td><td align="left">0.202</td><td align="left">0.97</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">6. (−) The demand to align teaching/support on empirical evidence annoys me.</td><td align="left">550</td><td align="left">3.16</td><td align="left">1.11</td><td align="left">0.0475</td><td align="left">0.63</td><td align="left">0.04</td><td align="left">0.065</td><td align="left">0.116</td><td align="left">0.255</td><td align="left">0.524</td><td align="left">0.77</td><td align="left">0.592</td><td align="left">0.173</td><td align="left">−0.023</td><td align="left">0.49</td><td align="left">0.757</td><td align="left">0.73</td></tr><tr><td align="left">7. Aligning teaching/support with empirical evidence increases students' learning success.</td><td align="left">550</td><td align="left">2.51</td><td align="left">0.89</td><td align="left">0.0380</td><td align="left">0.50</td><td align="left">0.022</td><td align="left">0.084</td><td align="left">0.384</td><td align="left">0.389</td><td align="left">0.122</td><td align="left">0.80</td><td align="left">0.838</td><td align="left">−0.040</td><td align="left">−0.044</td><td align="left">0.64</td><td align="left">0.872</td><td align="left">0.80</td></tr><tr><td align="left">8. Aligning teaching/support with empirical evidence makes teachers' work easier.</td><td align="left">550</td><td align="left">2.04</td><td align="left">0.96</td><td align="left">0.0410</td><td align="left">0.41</td><td align="left">0.058</td><td align="left">0.211</td><td align="left">0.415</td><td align="left">0.262</td><td align="left">0.055</td><td align="left">0.85</td><td align="left">0.785</td><td align="left">−0.219</td><td align="left">0.219</td><td align="left">0.59</td><td align="left">0.765</td><td align="left">0.74</td></tr><tr><td align="left">9. Alignment with empirical evidence enhances the quality of teaching/support.</td><td align="left">550</td><td align="left">2.62</td><td align="left">1.00</td><td align="left">0.0425</td><td align="left">0.52</td><td align="left">0.035</td><td align="left">0.089</td><td align="left">0.28</td><td align="left">0.411</td><td align="left">0.185</td><td align="left">0.85</td><td align="left">0.851</td><td align="left">0.000</td><td align="left">−0.022</td><td align="left">0.71</td><td align="left">0.869</td><td align="left">0.83</td></tr><tr><td align="left">10. (−) When teaching/support is aligned with empirical evidence, there is a risk of reducing pedagogical thinking to measurable output.</td><td align="left">550</td><td align="left">1.78</td><td align="left">1.12</td><td align="left">0.0478</td><td align="left">0.36</td><td align="left">0.14</td><td align="left">0.282</td><td align="left">0.293</td><td align="left">0.227</td><td align="left">0.058</td><td align="left">0.93</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">11. (−) The effort required to align teaching/support with empirical evidence is greater than the expected benefits.</td><td align="left">550</td><td align="left">2.17</td><td align="left">1.02</td><td align="left">0.0433</td><td align="left">0.43</td><td align="left">0.064</td><td align="left">0.178</td><td align="left">0.355</td><td align="left">0.329</td><td align="left">0.075</td><td align="left">0.88</td><td align="left">0.585</td><td align="left">0.137</td><td align="left">0.092</td><td align="left">0.52</td><td align="left">0.697</td><td align="left">0.72</td></tr><tr><td align="left">12. Teachers are capable of assessing the empirical evidence of methods/measures.</td><td align="left">550</td><td align="left">2.23</td><td align="left">0.97</td><td align="left">0.0413</td><td align="left">0.45</td><td align="left">0.044</td><td align="left">0.175</td><td align="left">0.365</td><td align="left">0.342</td><td align="left">0.075</td><td align="left">0.85</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">13. If my school provided evidence‐based methods/materials, I would align my teaching/support with empirical evidence.</td><td align="left">550</td><td align="left">2.74</td><td align="left">0.95</td><td align="left">0.0404</td><td align="left">0.55</td><td align="left">0.022</td><td align="left">0.075</td><td align="left">0.256</td><td align="left">0.436</td><td align="left">0.211</td><td align="left">0.82</td><td align="left">0.645</td><td align="left">0.194</td><td align="left">0.016</td><td align="left">0.62</td><td align="left">0.825</td><td align="left">0.76</td></tr><tr><td align="left">14. If there was a working group at my school to introduce evidence‐based methods, I would participate in it.</td><td align="left">550</td><td align="left">2.05</td><td align="left">1.28</td><td align="left">0.0544</td><td align="left">0.41</td><td align="left">0.144</td><td align="left">0.22</td><td align="left">0.215</td><td align="left">0.285</td><td align="left">0.136</td><td align="left">0.98</td><td align="left">0.487</td><td align="left">0.224</td><td align="left">0.101</td><td align="left">0.49</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Willingness to learn about and use scientific evidence</td></tr><tr><td align="left">15. In pedagogical decisions, I am open to integrating current empirical research findings with my own experience and the needs and preferences of my students.</td><td align="left">550</td><td align="left">3.21</td><td align="left">0.80</td><td align="left">0.0343</td><td align="left">0.64</td><td align="left">0.007</td><td align="left">0.025</td><td align="left">0.12</td><td align="left">0.444</td><td align="left">0.404</td><td align="left">0.69</td><td align="left">0.111</td><td align="left">0.805</td><td align="left">0.044</td><td align="left">0.80</td><td align="left">0.714</td><td align="left">0.53</td></tr><tr><td align="left">16. I am willing to participate in training to align teaching/support with empirical evidence.</td><td align="left">550</td><td align="left">2.80</td><td align="left">1.04</td><td align="left">0.0445</td><td align="left">0.56</td><td align="left">0.033</td><td align="left">0.085</td><td align="left">0.211</td><td align="left">0.393</td><td align="left">0.278</td><td align="left">0.85</td><td align="left">0.125</td><td align="left">0.759</td><td align="left">0.029</td><td align="left">0.73</td><td align="left">0.791</td><td align="left">0.57</td></tr><tr><td align="left">17. I am willing to inform myself about aligning teaching/support with empirical evidence through professional journals and books.</td><td align="left">550</td><td align="left">2.42</td><td align="left">1.14</td><td align="left">0.0484</td><td align="left">0.48</td><td align="left">0.049</td><td align="left">0.191</td><td align="left">0.235</td><td align="left">0.342</td><td align="left">0.184</td><td align="left">0.92</td><td align="left">0.015</td><td align="left">0.554</td><td align="left">0.412</td><td align="left">0.68</td><td align="left">0.827</td><td align="left">0.50</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Willingness to conduct independent research on EBP</td></tr><tr><td align="left">18. I am willing to search in databases such as 'Grüne Liste Prävention' or 'Clearing House Unterricht' for empirically tested methods/materials.</td><td align="left">550</td><td align="left">2.06</td><td align="left">1.19</td><td align="left">0.0509</td><td align="left">0.41</td><td align="left">0.116</td><td align="left">0.218</td><td align="left">0.271</td><td align="left">0.278</td><td align="left">0.116</td><td align="left">0.96</td><td align="left">−0.011</td><td align="left">0.260</td><td align="left">0.651</td><td align="left">0.62</td><td align="left">0.924</td><td align="left">0.46</td></tr><tr><td align="left">19. I am willing to search for scientific studies to assess the empirical evidence of methods/materials.</td><td align="left">550</td><td align="left">1.54</td><td align="left">1.18</td><td align="left">0.0503</td><td align="left">0.31</td><td align="left">0.216</td><td align="left">0.315</td><td align="left">0.255</td><td align="left">0.145</td><td align="left">0.069</td><td align="left">0.94</td><td align="left">0.007</td><td align="left">−0.048</td><td align="left">0.946</td><td align="left">0.86</td><td align="left">0.790</td><td align="left">0.32</td></tr><tr><td align="left">20. I am willing to evaluate the empirical evidence of methods/materials using a structured criteria list.</td><td align="left">550</td><td align="left">2.10</td><td align="left">1.12</td><td align="left">0.0476</td><td align="left">0.42</td><td align="left">0.089</td><td align="left">0.22</td><td align="left">0.282</td><td align="left">0.32</td><td align="left">0.089</td><td align="left">0.92</td><td align="left">0.141</td><td align="left">0.114</td><td align="left">0.557</td><td align="left">0.48</td><td align="left">0.776</td><td align="left">0.41</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>3 <emph>Note</emph>: Items marked with (−) are recoded before analysis. Items printed in italics are kept in the final scales. <emph>P</emph>, item difficulty; response categories; 0, strongly disagree; 1, somewhat agree; 2, partially agree; 3, mostly agree; 4, strongly agree; <emph>H</emph>, relative information criterion; CEFA, item loadings on the three factors, assignment of items to factors highlighted in bold; <emph>h</emph><sups>2</sups>, commonality; CCFA, standardised loading in CCFA on assigned factor; <emph>r</emph><subs>it</subs>, corrected item‐scale correlation. Please note that the original questionnaire was constructed in German. This is a translated version of the items. If you wish to use the questionnaire in English, we recommend a thorough linguistic review of the items.</p> <hd id="AN0184320718-21">Categorical exploratory factor analysis</hd> <p>All the steps within the CEFA were conducted with Subsample I. Overall, the items were not normally distributed; thus, a categorical factor analysis based on a polychoric correlation matrix was used. The KMO criterion for implementation was set at 0.91. Except for Item 12 (MSA = 0.31), all the items had a high to very high MSA. Bartlett's test for sphericity is also significant with <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:14713802:media:jrs312727:jrs312727-math-0001" display="inline" overflow="scroll" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><semantics><mrow><msubsup><mi>χ</mi><mfenced close=")" open="("><mrow><mi mathvariant="italic">df</mi><mo>=</mo><mn>190</mn></mrow></mfenced><mn>2</mn></msubsup><mo>=</mo><mn>3725.39</mn></mrow><annotation encoding="application/x-tex">$$ {\chi}_{\left(df=190\right)}^2=3725.39 $$</annotation></semantics></math> </ephtml> , <emph>p</emph> < 0.001. At the same time, Items 4, 5 and 10 showed medium to high correlations only with few other items; therefore, they were excluded together with Item 12 from further analysis.</p> <p>Both the parallel test and the Velicer MAP (see Figure S2 for details) suggest a three‐factor solution. We conducted factor analysis with three factors using maximum likelihood procedures with oblimin rotation. The communalities of the items lie between <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:14713802:media:jrs312727:jrs312727-math-0002" display="inline" overflow="scroll" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><semantics><mrow><msup><mi>h</mi><mn>2</mn></msup><mo>=</mo><mn>0.48</mn></mrow><annotation encoding="application/x-tex">$$ {h}^2=0.48 $$</annotation></semantics></math> </ephtml> and <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:14713802:media:jrs312727:jrs312727-math-0003" display="inline" overflow="scroll" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><semantics><mrow><msup><mi>h</mi><mn>2</mn></msup><mo>=</mo><mn>0.86</mn></mrow><annotation encoding="application/x-tex">$$ {h}^2=0.86 $$</annotation></semantics></math> </ephtml> with a mean of 0.65. Overall, the factors accounted for 0.65% of the total variance, with factor (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref93">1</reflink>) accounting for 0.36%, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref94">2</reflink>) for 0.15% and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref95">3</reflink>) for 0.13%. Table 3 shows the initial item statistics, factor loadings and communality of the items. Of the items included in the analysis, only Item 14 did not load on any factor with >0.5 and was therefore excluded from the final questionnaire.</p> <p>Theoretically, the three factors cover three content areas (see Table 3): Factor one, which can be described globally as 'attitudes towards evidence‐based practice' (abbreviation: attitudes), is the 'core scale' of the questionnaire. It covers the core components of emotional, cognitive and behavioural evaluations of the concept of EBP from the teacher's perspective. The second factor, which can be described as 'willingness to learn about and use scientific evidence' (abbreviation: informing), goes beyond this core concept a little bit by covering activities that rather need a more active involvement than just implementing EBPs. Finally, the content area covered by the third factor is about the 'willingness to conduct independent research on and evaluate scientific evidence' (abbreviation: researching). This means How much is the teacher willing or prepared to not only read about which practices are evidence‐based but also to search for information/research to evaluate evidence by itself? The correlations between the factors are moderate to high with <emph>r</emph> = 0.61 (Factor 1 versus Factor 2), <emph>r</emph> = 0.38 (Factor 1 versus Factor 3) and <emph>r</emph> = 0.42 (Factor 2 versus Factor 3). This means that there is substantial overlap between the covered content areas; however, there is still sufficient unique variance for each subscale.</p> <hd id="AN0184320718-22">Categorical confirmatory factor analysis and measurement invariance</hd> <p>While the goal of the first CEFA was to explore the questionnaire's factorial structure, we needed to confirm this structure using a second sample of participants (Subsample II). As we treated the items as categorical data in the first analysis, we also performed a confirmatory factor analysis in the categorical variant (CCFA). In short terms, the findings of the CCFA confirmed those from the CEFA, so the factor solution with the three subscales can be seen as stable: Figure 2 shows the model resulting from the CEFA and used in the CCFA with the unstandardised estimators (DWLS). Table 3 lists the standardised loadings of the items. Overall, the items had high to very high loadings for the assumed factors. The chi‐squared test for exact model fit indicates a significant deviation between the theoretical model and data with <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:14713802:media:jrs312727:jrs312727-math-0004" display="inline" overflow="scroll" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><semantics><mrow><msubsup><mi>χ</mi><mfenced close=")" open="("><mrow><mi mathvariant="italic">df</mi><mo>=</mo><mn>87</mn></mrow></mfenced><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow><annotation encoding="application/x-tex">$$ {\chi}_{\left(df=87\right)}^2 $$</annotation></semantics></math> </ephtml>  = 202.33, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001. As the test for absolute model fit is very sensitive, relative fit indices were also considered. Based on these, the specified model proves to be acceptable with <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:14713802:media:jrs312727:jrs312727-math-0005" display="inline" overflow="scroll" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><semantics><mrow><msup><mi>χ</mi><mn>2</mn></msup></mrow><annotation encoding="application/x-tex">$$ {\chi}^2 $$</annotation></semantics></math> </ephtml> /<emph>df</emph>‐ratio = 2.33, RMSEA = 0.07 (90% CI = [0.057; 0.082]), CFI = 0.995, TLI = 0.994, whereby it must be considered that CFI and TLI inflate with polychoric correlation matrix and DWLS estimation. The factor reliabilities (composite reliability, CR) are CR = 0.95 (attitudes factor), CR = 0.82 (informing factor) and CR = 0.85 (research factor), which indicates a reliable measurement.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/0LC/01apr25/jrs312727-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="jrs312727-fig-0002.jpg" title="2 Model of confirmatory factor analysis with unstandardised estimators." /> </p> <p></p> <p>Additionally, we evaluated the MIV between general and special education teaching using the total sample because of the acceptable model fit in the CCFA. Thus, we assessed whether the factorial structure and estimated parameters were equal across both groups of teachers. Configural, metric and scalar invariances were given (see Table S2), which can be seen as the assumption to be met for mean comparisons between groups and the relative fit indices were within the acceptable range for all models. Moreover, the difference in RMSEA between the levels was less than 0.015 and less than 0.01 for CFI and TLI, respectively. We evaluated Differentiated Item Functioning (DIF) using a Graded Response Model (GRM) for each scale. There are no indications of DIF for any of the items (see Supplemental Figure S3 in the electronic supplement). This means that the estimated item difficulties in the graded response model did not differ significantly between the groups. Considering both MIV and DIF, we assumed that the developed instrument functioned comparably in both groups (general and special needs education teachers).</p> <hd id="AN0184320718-24">Scale analysis</hd> <p>All items showed sufficiently high item–total correlations (see Table 3), indicating that all items sufficiently discriminated between persons with high and low attitude scores. Furthermore, internal consistency suggests a reliable measurement: The internal consistency for the Attitudes scale (<emph>M</emph> = 2.57, SD = 2.57, 95% CI = [2.50, 2.64]) is <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:14713802:media:jrs312727:jrs312727-math-0006" display="inline" overflow="scroll" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><semantics><mrow><mi>α</mi></mrow><annotation encoding="application/x-tex">$$ \alpha $$</annotation></semantics></math> </ephtml> = 0.92, for the scale Informing (<emph>M</emph> = 2.81, SD = 2.81, 95% CI = [2.74, 2.88]) <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:14713802:media:jrs312727:jrs312727-math-0007" display="inline" overflow="scroll" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><semantics><mrow><mi>α</mi></mrow><annotation encoding="application/x-tex">$$ \alpha $$</annotation></semantics></math> </ephtml> = 0.78 and for the scale Researching (<emph>M</emph> = 1.90, SD = 1.90, 95% CI = [1.82, 1.98]) it is <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:14713802:media:jrs312727:jrs312727-math-0008" display="inline" overflow="scroll" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><semantics><mrow><mi>α</mi></mrow><annotation encoding="application/x-tex">$$ \alpha $$</annotation></semantics></math> </ephtml> = 0.81. All three scales showed significant deviations from the normal distribution (settings: <emph>W</emph> = 0.98, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001; Inform: <emph>W</emph> = 0.95, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001; Researching: <emph>W</emph> = 0.98, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001), whereby in the visual analysis (supplemental figure in ESM 2) and the observation of skewness and kurtosis, these deviations are within an acceptable range for the scales Attitudes [skewness = −0.55 (SE = 0.10), kurtosis = 0.28 (SE = 0.21)] and Researching [skewness = 0.05 (SE = 0.10), kurtosis = −0.61 (SE = 0.21)]. For the scale Informing, skewness and kurtosis were within acceptable ranges [skewness = −0.51 (SE = 0.10), kurtosis = −0.13 (SE = 0.21)], even though deviations from normality were based on visual inspection. The intercorrelations of the scales were moderate to large, ranging from 0.47 to 0.64 (see Table S3).</p> <hd id="AN0184320718-25">Group comparison</hd> <p>Before the final examination of differences between the types of teaching profession (general versus special needs education teaching profession), the theoretically possibly relevant influencing variable 'age' is notably unequally distributed between the two groups of participants. We addressed this in two ways. First, the age of the participants was included as a UV in the MANOVA. Second, in addition to the original sample, MANOVA was conducted on a matched sample. The matching was carried out in such a way that in each age group, many people were randomly selected from the teaching profession type with the most participants there as were represented in the other teaching profession type. (e.g., In the 'general teaching' group, 9 participants were 20–29 years old, whereas in the special needs teaching group, 22 were within that age; therefore 9 people were randomly selected from the 'special needs teaching' group in that age for the matched sample). After removing two extreme outlier values, all requirements for MANOVA were met, except for deviations from the normal distribution.</p> <p>In both samples, the analyses showed significantly higher attitude scores for special education teachers than general teachers (Table 4 and Figure 3). The effect sizes of the differences ranged from <emph>d</emph> = 0.30 to 0.41 in the original sample—after matching both groups for age, the difference was slightly higher (<emph>d</emph> = 0.34–0.46). In more technical terms, in the unmatched sample, there was a main effect for teaching profession [Wilks <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:14713802:media:jrs312727:jrs312727-math-0009" display="inline" overflow="scroll" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><semantics><mrow><mi>λ</mi></mrow><annotation encoding="application/x-tex">$$ \lambda $$</annotation></semantics></math> </ephtml> = 0.96, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref96">3</reflink>, 536) = 7.54, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001, <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups><subs>p</subs> = 0.041 (95% CI = [0.011; 0.074])], but neither for age [Wilks <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:14713802:media:jrs312727:jrs312727-math-0010" display="inline" overflow="scroll" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><semantics><mrow><mi>λ</mi></mrow><annotation encoding="application/x-tex">$$ \lambda $$</annotation></semantics></math> </ephtml> = 0.98, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref97">12</reflink>, 1418.414) = 0.84, <emph>p</emph> = 0.608, <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups><subs>p</subs> = 0.007 (95% CI = [0.000; 0.008])] nor an interaction effect between age and teaching profession [Wilks <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:14713802:media:jrs312727:jrs312727-math-0011" display="inline" overflow="scroll" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><semantics><mrow><mi>λ</mi></mrow><annotation encoding="application/x-tex">$$ \lambda $$</annotation></semantics></math> </ephtml> = 0.98, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref98">12</reflink>, 1418.414) = 1.11, <emph>p</emph> = 0.349, <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups><subs>p</subs> = 0.009 (95% CI = [0.000; 0.012])]. The differences between teaching professions showed a significant main effect in the follow‐up ANOVA on all three scales (see Table 5).</p> <p>4 TABLE Comparison between general and special needs teacher training with and without matching. Values in square brackets indicate the 95% confidence interval.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Teaching profession</th><th align="left">Original sample</th><th align="left">Matched sample</th></tr><tr><th align="left"><italic>n</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="left">SD</th><th align="left">SE</th><th align="left"><italic>d</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>n</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="left">SD</th><th align="left">SE</th><th align="left"><italic>d</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Attitudes</td></tr><tr><td align="left">General teachers</td><td align="left">369</td><td align="left">2.49 [2.41; 2.57]</td><td align="left">0.77</td><td align="left">0.04</td><td align="left">0.33 [0.15; 0.52]</td><td align="left">166</td><td align="left">2.43 [2.32; 2.55]</td><td align="left">0.74</td><td align="left">0.06</td><td align="left">0.43 [0.21; 0.66]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Special education teachers</td><td align="left">179</td><td align="left">2.75 [2.63; 2.86]</td><td align="left">0.76</td><td align="left">0.06</td><td align="left">166</td><td align="left">2.76 [2.64; 2.88]</td><td align="left">0.77</td><td align="left">0.06</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Informing</td></tr><tr><td align="left">General teachers</td><td align="left">369</td><td align="left">2.70 [2.62; 2.79]</td><td align="left">0.83</td><td align="left">0.04</td><td align="left">0.41 [0.22; 0.59]</td><td align="left">166</td><td align="left">2.68 [2.55; 2.80]</td><td align="left">0.83</td><td align="left">0.06</td><td align="left">0.46 [0.25; 0.67]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Special education teachers</td><td align="left">179</td><td align="left">3.04 [2.92; 3.15]</td><td align="left">0.79</td><td align="left">0.06</td><td align="left">166</td><td align="left">3.05 [2.93; 3.17]</td><td align="left">0.80</td><td align="left">0.06</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Researching</td></tr><tr><td align="left">General teachers</td><td align="left">369</td><td align="left">1.80 [1.70; 1.90]</td><td align="left">0.96</td><td align="left">0.05</td><td align="left">0.30 [0.12; 0.5]</td><td align="left">166</td><td align="left">1.81 [1.66; 1.95]</td><td align="left">0.94</td><td align="left">0.07</td><td align="left">0.34 [0.13; 0.56]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Special education teachers</td><td align="left">179</td><td align="left">2.10 [1.95; 2.25]</td><td align="left">1.01</td><td align="left">0.08</td><td align="left">166</td><td align="left">2.14 [1.98; 2.29]</td><td align="left">1.00</td><td align="left">0.08</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/0LC/01apr25/jrs312727-fig-0003.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="jrs312727-fig-0003.jpg" title="3 Comparison between general and special education teachers." /> </p> <p></p> <p>5 TABLE Follow‐up analysis of variance for effects of teaching profession and age on the attitude scales.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Effect</th><th align="left">Original sample</th><th align="left">Matched sample</th></tr><tr><th align="left">SS<sub>n</sub></th><th align="left">SS<sub>d</sub></th><th align="left"><italic>F</italic> (<italic>df</italic><sub><italic>n</italic></sub>, <italic>df</italic><sub><italic>d</italic></sub>)</th><th align="left"><italic>p</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>p</italic><sub>adj</sub></th><th align="left"><italic>η</italic><sup>2</sup><sub>p</sub></th><th align="left">SS<sub>n</sub></th><th align="left">SS<sub>d</sub></th><th align="left"><italic>F</italic> (<italic>df</italic><sub><italic>n</italic></sub>, <italic>df</italic><sub><italic>d</italic></sub>)</th><th align="left"><italic>p</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>p</italic><sub>adj</sub></th><th align="left"><italic>η</italic><sup>2</sup><sub>p</sub></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Attitudes</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">Teaching profession</td><td align="left">8.38</td><td align="left">316.03</td><td align="left">14.26 (1, 538)</td><td align="left"><0.001</td><td align="left"><0.001</td><td align="left">0.024 [0.005; 0.056]</td><td align="left">8.75</td><td align="left">183.48</td><td align="left">15.35 (1, 322)</td><td align="left"><0.001</td><td align="left"><0.001</td><td align="left">0.046 [0.011; 0.098]</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">Age</td><td align="left">2.10</td><td align="left">316.03</td><td align="left">0.89 (4, 538)</td><td align="left">0.468</td><td align="left">0.936</td><td align="left">0.007 [0.000; 0.019]</td><td align="left">2.19</td><td align="left">183.48</td><td align="left">0.96 (4, 322)</td><td align="left">0.428</td><td align="left">>0.999</td><td align="left">0.012 [0.000; 0.033]</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">Teaching profession × age</td><td align="left">5.19</td><td align="left">316.03</td><td align="left">2.21 (4, 538)</td><td align="left">0.067</td><td align="left">0.201</td><td align="left">0.016 [0.000; 0.037]</td><td align="left">2.68</td><td align="left">183.48</td><td align="left">1.18</td><td align="left">0.320</td><td align="left">0.960</td><td align="left">0.014 [0.000; 0.039]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Informing</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">Teaching profession</td><td align="left">14.21</td><td align="left">360.28</td><td align="left">21.22 (1, 538)</td><td align="left"><0.001</td><td align="left"><0.001</td><td align="left">0.036 [0.011; 0.072]</td><td align="left">11.70</td><td align="left">212.84</td><td align="left">17.70 (1, 322)</td><td align="left"><0.001</td><td align="left"><0.001</td><td align="left">0.052 [0.015; 0.106]</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">Age</td><td align="left">3.50</td><td align="left">360.28</td><td align="left">1.31 (4, 538)</td><td align="left">0.266</td><td align="left">0.798</td><td align="left">0.010 [0.000; 0.025]</td><td align="left">2.26</td><td align="left">212.84</td><td align="left">0.86 (4, 322)</td><td align="left">0.490</td><td align="left">>0.999</td><td align="left">0.011 [0.000; 0.031]</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">Teaching profession × age</td><td align="left">2.74</td><td align="left">360.28</td><td align="left">1.02 (4, 538)</td><td align="left">0.395</td><td align="left">0.790</td><td align="left">0.008 [0.000; 0.021]</td><td align="left">2.76</td><td align="left">212.84</td><td align="left">1.04 (4, 322)</td><td align="left">0.385</td><td align="left">0.960</td><td align="left">0.013 [0.000; 0.035]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Researching</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">Teaching profession</td><td align="left">10.84</td><td align="left">519.88</td><td align="left">11.21 (1, 538)</td><td align="left">0.001</td><td align="left">0.001</td><td align="left">0.020 [0.004; 0.050]</td><td align="left">9.11</td><td align="left">305.24</td><td align="left">9.61 (1, 322)</td><td align="left">0.002</td><td align="left">0.002</td><td align="left">0.029 [0.004; 0.074]</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">Age</td><td align="left">1.84</td><td align="left">519.88</td><td align="left">0.48 (4, 538)</td><td align="left">0.753</td><td align="left">0.936</td><td align="left">0.004 [0.000; 0.011]</td><td align="left">3.62</td><td align="left">305.24</td><td align="left">0.96 (4, 322)</td><td align="left">0.432</td><td align="left">>0.999</td><td align="left">0.012 [0.000; 0.033]</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">Teaching profession × age</td><td align="left">1.07</td><td align="left">519.88</td><td align="left">0.28 (4, 538)</td><td align="left">0.892</td><td align="left">0.892</td><td align="left">0.002 [0.000; 0.007]</td><td align="left">3.22</td><td align="left">305.24</td><td align="left">0.85 (4, 322)</td><td align="left">0.494</td><td align="left">0.960</td><td align="left">0.010 [0.000; 0.030]</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>4 Abbreviations: <emph>df</emph><subs><emph>d</emph></subs>, degrees of freedom (denominator); <emph>df</emph><subs><emph>n</emph></subs>, degrees of freedom (numerator); <emph>p</emph><subs>adj</subs>, Bonferooni‐Holm‐adjusted <emph>p</emph>‐value; SS<subs>d</subs>, sum of squares (denominator); SS<subs>n</subs>, sum of squares (numerator); <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups><subs>p</subs>, partial <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups>.</p> <p>In the matched sample, the findings confirmed that there is a main effect for the teaching profession [Wilks <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:14713802:media:jrs312727:jrs312727-math-0012" display="inline" overflow="scroll" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><semantics><mrow><mi>λ</mi></mrow><annotation encoding="application/x-tex">$$ \lambda $$</annotation></semantics></math> </ephtml> = 0.94, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref99">3</reflink>, 320) = 6.91, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001, <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups><subs>p</subs> = 0.061 (95% CI = [0.015; 0.112])], but neither one for age [Wilks <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:14713802:media:jrs312727:jrs312727-math-0013" display="inline" overflow="scroll" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><semantics><mrow><mi>λ</mi></mrow><annotation encoding="application/x-tex">$$ \lambda $$</annotation></semantics></math> </ephtml> = 0.97, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref100">12</reflink>, 846.9319) = 0.68, <emph>p</emph> = 0.772, <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups><subs>p</subs> = 0.010 (95% CI = [0.000; 0.010])] nor an interaction effect [Wilks <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:14713802:media:jrs312727:jrs312727-math-0014" display="inline" overflow="scroll" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><semantics><mrow><mi>λ</mi></mrow><annotation encoding="application/x-tex">$$ \lambda $$</annotation></semantics></math> </ephtml> = 0.96, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref101">12</reflink>, 846.9319) = 1.05, <emph>p</emph> = 0.403, <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups><subs>p</subs> = 0.015 (95% CI = [0.000; 0.019])]. However, the group differences on the scales were somewhat higher than those in the unmatched sample (Tables 4 and 5).</p> <hd id="AN0184320718-27">DISCUSSION</hd> <p>In pedagogical practice, the questions of the effectiveness and efficiency of teaching and support inevitably arise. The concept of EBP embodies the principle that teachers should preferentially use methods and strategies whose effectiveness has been demonstrated in scientific studies to improve teaching and support. For several years, there has been a growing demand for evidence‐based approaches in (special) education, with EBP serving as a means to meet this demand. Teachers' attitudes play a crucial role in this context as they may influence the successful implementation of these practices. In this study, we developed and conducted the first psychometric evaluation of a questionnaire designed to measure teachers' attitudes towards EBP.</p> <p>Our analyses contribute to the theoretical understanding of EBP in education by identifying a structure with three subscales: 'Attitudes towards evidence‐based practice' (Attitudes), 'Willingness to learn about and use scientific evidence' (Informing) and 'Willingness to conduct independent research on and evaluate scientific evidence' (Researching), all of which demonstrated satisfactory reliability (Research questions Q1, Q2). These dimensions align with the theoretical framework that attitudes are multifaceted, incorporating cognitive, affective and behavioural components (Maio & Haddock, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref102">45</reflink>]). The Informing and Researching subscales prioritise behavioural aspects by assessing teachers' willingness, while the Attitudes subscale contains items representing all three components of attitudes. These items incorporate prior research as they include predictors of appreciation for EBP (Thomm et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref103">62</reflink>]), such as source access (Item 13), as well as emotional and motivational aspects (Items 1, 2, 3 and 6). The predictor perceived lack of sourcing skill or time is not directly addressed; only the willingness to learn or apply sourcing skills is reported within the subscales Researching and Informing. These represent two new dimensions that may significantly impact the successful implementation of EBP. Overall, these dimensions provide a comprehensive framework for examining how teachers engage in EBP and offer new insights into the factors that facilitate or hinder its implementation in educational settings.</p> <p>Although the three subscales were independent of each other, they showed moderate‐to‐large correlations (Q3), indicating both interconnectedness but also potential variation in attitudes and behavioural intentions related to EBP. This is consistent with previous findings that showed positive attitudes towards EBP but at the same time perceived challenges in implementation (Atas et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref104">5</reflink>]; Georgiou et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref105">24</reflink>]), which can lead to less willingness to engage with EBP. The correlation between attitudes and willingness can be explained by the finding that teachers who perceive lack of skills are more likely to consider empirical evidence irrelevant to their practice (Thomm et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref106">62</reflink>]). This finding shows that insufficient skills can limit teachers' willingness and may influence their general attitudes towards EBP.</p> <p>Furthermore, the instrument measures equal constructs for both general and special education teachers (Q4). Special needs teachers showed slightly more positive attitudes towards EBP and a slightly higher willingness to learn about research and evaluate scientific evidence on their own than their general education counterparts, with small‐to‐medium effect sizes (Q5). This may be attributed to the intensive discourse on EBP in the field of special education in Germany, as discussed in practice‐relevant journals, advanced training programmes and teacher associations. Furthermore, special education teacher training differs from general teacher training because it incorporates disciplines such as psychology and medicine in which EBP is more firmly established and less subject to debate. Unlike general teacher training, special education programmes place a stronger emphasis on diagnostics. Consequently, special education teachers may be more familiar with evidence‐based decisions as they are accustomed to integrating diagnostic data into their pedagogical decisions. Based on the study results, greater familiarity with research methods can mitigate perceived barriers to engaging with educational research findings (Thomm et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref107">62</reflink>]) and lead to more positive attitudes towards EBP. Therefore, examining the differences between general and special education teachers' familiarity with research methods and statistics is also crucial.</p> <p>In addition, our findings align with those of Atas et al. ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref108">5</reflink>]), who demonstrated that special education teachers acknowledge the importance and effectiveness of EBP. The results of Thomm et al. ([<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref109">62</reflink>]) also showed a moderate level of appreciation of EBP and educational research findings among the surveyed teachers. The absence of significant age‐related differences suggests that attitudes towards EBP are not influenced by generational factors which is in line with the current findings that age was not explicitly identified as a predictor in the provided excerpts from the studies (Diery et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref110">18</reflink>]; Thomm et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref111">62</reflink>]).</p> <p>Furthermore, both general and special education teachers were less willing to conduct independent research compared to their willingness to learn about and use scientific evidence. This reluctance may stem from a perceived lack of skills and knowledge necessary for EBP, echoing findings from Van Schaik et al. ([<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref112">64</reflink>]), who noted that barriers to EBP include insufficient individual skills and knowledge. Consequently, it can be assumed that teachers are less likely to search for empirically tested methods, materials or scientific studies independently because of their perceived lack of preparedness for evaluating empirical evidence.</p> <p>Our findings have significant implications for teacher training and professional development programmes. The validated questionnaire can serve as a diagnostic tool to identify areas where teachers may require additional support or training in EBP. By incorporating modules that enhance teachers' skills related to EBP, educational institutions can bridge the research‐practice gap and promote more effective and efficient teaching practices. Questionnaires could also be used to evaluate the impact of such training programmes.</p> <hd id="AN0184320718-28">LIMITATIONS</hd> <p>The validity of our study is limited by the fact that the sample was voluntary and therefore may not be representative. Consequently, selection bias in terms of content cannot be ruled out, especially because of the unequal distribution of special education and general education teachers in the sample. Additionally, reliance on self‐reported surveys introduces the potential for social desirability bias. Although the presented findings speak for a plausible factor structure, good reliability, and MIV between teaching professions, the congruence with other studies and expected group differences only provide indications of validity. Sufficient data are not yet available, particularly concerning convergent, divergent and prognostic validities. Future studies should investigate these aspects by theoretically examining their correlations with other constructs. In addition, attempts should be made to assess prognostic validity within the framework of the theory of planned behaviour.</p> <p>Moreover, the instrument's validation in this specific national context suggests caution when generalising the results to other countries with different educational systems. Cross‐cultural validation studies are required to confirm the applicability of this instrument in diverse settings. The variations in attitudes towards EBP among teachers may be specific to Germany, given the unique aspects of teacher training and the school system. Therefore, the generalisability of these findings to other countries remains uncertain and requires further investigation.</p> <hd id="AN0184320718-29">CONCLUSION</hd> <p>This study aimed to develop and validate a questionnaire to measure teachers' attitudes towards EBP, revealing a robust factor structure and measurement invariance between general and special education teachers. It was found that special education teachers exhibited more positive attitudes towards EBP, whereas age or gender did not significantly influence these attitudes.</p> <p>The validated instrument can be utilised in implementation research and evaluation of teacher training programmes, helping to identify and address gaps in EBP‐related attitudes and skills among teachers.</p> <p>Future research should explore the convergent, divergent and prognostic validity of the questionnaire to establish its utility in various educational contexts. Since the initial submission of our manuscript, some relevant studies have been published. For instance, Merle et al. ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref113">47</reflink>]) developed and evaluated a school Evidence‐Based Practice Attitude Scale (S‐EBPAS), adapted from an established health sector scale (EBPAS; Aarons, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref114">1</reflink>]). Overall, 441 primary school teachers from Washington, Ohio and Illinois participated in the study. The scale's factor structure and its robust psychometric properties were confirmed. The S‐EBPAS introduces a reliable and internally consistent instrument for assessing teachers' attitudes towards EBP, offering potential for future research to explore convergent validity using both scales.</p> <p>There is a need to further conduct longitudinal studies to examine how teachers' attitudes towards EBP evolve with their ongoing professional development and support. Additionally, investigating the impact of positive attitudes towards EBP on student outcomes and educational effectiveness would provide valuable evidence for the broader benefits of EBP implementation.</p> <p>Promoting EBPs in education is crucial for enhancing teaching effectiveness and ensuring equitable access to quality education for all students. Continued research and practical efforts are needed to support teachers in embracing and implementing EBP, ultimately bridging the research‐practice gap in education.</p> <hd id="AN0184320718-30">FUNDING INFORMATION</hd> <p>No funding was received for the conduct of this study.</p> <hd id="AN0184320718-31">CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT</hd> <p>All authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0184320718-32">DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT</hd> <p>All materials, data, analysis syntax and electronical supplements are available at the Open Science Framework (OSF) (10.17605/OSF.IO/M2ENC).</p> <hd id="AN0184320718-33">ETHICS STATEMENT</hd> <p>No ethical approval required.</p> <p>GRAPH: Table S1.</p> <p>GRAPH: Figure S1.</p> <p>GRAPH: Data S1.</p> <p>GRAPH: Data S2.</p> <ref id="AN0184320718-34"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref48" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Aarons, G.A. (2004) Mental health provider attitudes towards adoption of evidence‐based practice: the evidence‐based practice attitude scale (EBPAS). Mental Health Services Research, 6 (2), 61 – 74. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:MHSR.0000024351.12294.65</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref19" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Ahrbeck, B., Ellinger, S., Hechler, O., Koch, K. & Schad, G. (2016) Evidenzbasierte Pädagogik: Sonderpädagogische Einwände [evidence‐based pedagogy: special education objections]. Stuttgart : Kohlhammer Verlag.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref22" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Ajzen, I. (1991) The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50 (2), 179 – 211. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/0749‐5978(91)90020‐T</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref7" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> American Psychological Association. (2006) Evidence‐based practice in psychology. The American Psychologist, 61 (4), 271 – 285. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1037/0003‐066X.61.4.271</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref56" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Atas, B., Ozsandikci, I., Olcay, S. & Saral, D. (2023) Opinions about evidence‐based practices among special education teachers. Journal of Evidence‐Based Social Work, 20 (1), 145 – 157. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/26408066.2022.2133981</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref24" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Baumert, J. & Kunter, M. (2006) Stichwort: Professionelle Kompetenz von Lehrkräften [professional competence of teachers]. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 9 (4), 469 – 520. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618‐006‐0165‐2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref31" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Besa, K., Lüking, S., Biehl, A. & Wilde, M. (2023) Research competence of student teachers and students from other disciplines. Zeitschrift für Bildungsforschung, 13, 55 – 74. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s35834‐023‐00382‐w</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref10" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Boyle, C., Koutsouris, G., Mateu, A. & Anderson, J. (2020) The matter of 'Evidence' in the inclusive education debate. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.1019</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref91" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Brunner, M. & Süß, H.‐M. (2005) Analyzing the reliability of multidimensional measures: an example from intelligence research. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 65 (2), 227 – 240. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164404268669</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen, F.F. (2007) Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14 (3), 464 – 504. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cheung, G.W. & Rensvold, R.B. (2002) Evaluating goodness‐of‐fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9 (2), 233 – 255. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem0902_5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cook, B.G., Buysse, V., Klingner, J.K., Landrum, T.J., McWilliam, R.A., Tankersley, M. et al. (2015) CEC's standards for classifying the evidence base of practices in special education. Remedial and Special Education, 36 (4), 220 – 234. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932514557271</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cortina, J.M. (1993) What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and application. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78 (1), 98 – 104. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1037/0021‐9010.78.1.98</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cronbach, L.J. (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297 – 334. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dederich, M. (2017) Die politische dimension evidenzbasierter Bildungsfoschung und evidenzbasierter Pädagogik [the policy dimension of evidence‐based educational research and evidence‐based pedagogy]. Sonderpädagogische Förderung Heute, 62 (4), 346 – 359.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dekker, I. & Meeter, M. (2022) Evidence‐based education: objections and future directions. Frontiers in Education, 7, 941410. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.941410</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dekker, S., Lee, N.P., Howard‐Jones, P.A. & Jolles, J. (2012) Neuromyths in education: prevalence and predictors of misconceptions among teachers. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 33784. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00429</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Diery, A., Vogel, F., Knogler, M. & Seidel, T. (2020) Evidence‐based practice in higher education: teacher educators' attitudes, challenges, and uses. Frontiers in Education, 5, 62. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.00062</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dündar, S. & Gündüz, N. (2016) Misconceptions regarding the brain: the neuromyths of preservice teachers. Mind, Brain, and Education, 10 (4), 212 – 232. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12119</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eid, M. & Schmidt, K. (2014) Testtheorie und Testkonstruktion [Test theory and test construction]. Göttingen : Hogrefe.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fives, H. & Buehl, M.M. (2008) What do teachers believe? Developing a framework for examining beliefs about teachers' knowledge and ability. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33 (2), 134 – 176. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.01.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Forness, S.R. (2005) The pursuit of evidence‐based practice in special education for children with emotional or behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 30 (4), 311 – 330. Available from: <ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/23889846">http://www.jstor.org/stable/23889846</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frantz, I. & Heinrichs, N. (2015) Implementation von in der Forschung untersuchten Präventionsprogrammen in die praxis [implementation of research‐investigated prevention programmes in practice]. Zeitschrift für Klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie, 44 (1), 56 – 61. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1026/1616‐3443/a000289</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Georgiou, D., Diery, A., Mok, S.Y., Fischer, F. & Seidel, T. (2023) Turning research evidence to teaching action: teacher educators' attitudes toward evidence‐based teaching. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 4, 100240. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2023.100240</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gitlin, A., Barlow, L., Burbank, M.D., Kauchak, D. & Stevens, T. (1999) Pre‐service teachers' thinking on research: implications for inquiry oriented teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15 (7), 753 – 769. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742‐051X(99)00015‐3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grosche, M. (2017) Eine analyse der Funktion von quantitativen Daten für evidenzbasierte Entscheidungen zur Ermöglichung der Zusammenarbeit von quantitativen und nicht‐quantitativen Forschungszugängen [an analysis of the function of quantitative data for evidence‐based decision‐making to enable quantitative and non‐quantitative research approaches to work together]. Sonderpädagogische Förderung Heute, 62, 360 – 371.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hartke, B., Blumenthal, Y. & Voß, S. (2017) Evidenzbasierte (sonder‐) pädagogische praxis–Grenzen und Chancen [evidence‐based (special) educational practice–limits and opportunities]. Sonderpädagogische Förderung Heute, 62 (4), 372 – 382.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hattie, J. (2009) Visible learning: a synthesis of over 800 meta‐analyses relating to achievement. New York : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Haynes, S.N., Richard, D.C.S. & Kubany, E.S. (1995) Content validity in psychological assessment: a functional approach to concepts and methods. Psychological Assessment, 7 (3), 238 – 247. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1037/1040‐3590.7.3.238</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Helmke, A. (2012) Unterrichtsqualität und Lehrerprofessionalität: diagnose, evaluation und Verbesserung des Unterrichts [teaching quality and teacher professionalism: diagnosis, evaluation, and improvement of teaching], 4th edition. Seelze : Klett‐Kallmeyer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hetmanek, A., Wecker, C., Kiesewetter, J., Trempler, K., Fischer, M.R., Gräsel, C. et al. (2015) Wozu nutzen Lehrkräfte welche Ressourcen? Eine Interviewstudie zur Schnittstelle zwischen bildungswissenschaftlicher Forschung und professionellem Handeln im Bildungsbereich [What do teachers use which resources for? Interview study on the interface between educational research and professional action in education]. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 43 (3), 194 – 210.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hillenbrand, C. (2015) Evidenzbasierung sonderpädagogischer praxis: Widerspruch oder Gelingensbedingung? [evidence‐based special needs education practice: contradictions or conditions for success?]. Zeitschrift für Heilpädagogik, 66 (7), 312 – 324.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hintz, A.‐M. & Grünke, M. (2009) Einschätzungen von angehenden Lehrkräften für sonder‐und allgemeine Schulen zur Wirksamkeit von Interventionen für den Schriftspracherwerb bei lernschwachen Kindern [assessments of prospective teachers for special and general schools on the effectiveness of interventions for the acquisition of written language in children with learning difficulties]. Empirische Sonderpädagogik, 1 (1), 45 – 61. Available from: https://doi.org/10.25656/01:9463</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hornby, G. (2015) Inclusive special education: development of a new theory for the education of children with special educational needs and disabilities. British Journal of Special Education, 42 (3), 234 – 256. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467‐8578.12101</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ingram, D., Louis, K.S. & Schroeder, R.G. (2004) Accountability policies and teacher decision‐making: barriers to the use of data to improve practice. Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education, 106 (6), 1258 – 1287. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐9620.2004.00379.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kelava, A. & Moosbrugger, H. (2020) Deskriptivstatistische Itemanalyse und Testwertbestimmung [descriptive statistical item analysis and test score determination]. In: Moosbrugger, H. & Kelava, A. (Eds.) Testtheorie und Fragebogenkonstruktion [Test theory and questionnaire construction]. Berlin & Heidelberg : Springer, pp. 143 – 158. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐3‐662‐61532‐4_7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kocaj, A., Kuhl, P., Jansen, M., Pant, H.A. & Stanat, P. (2018) Educational placement and achievement motivation of students with special educational needs. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 55, 63 – 83. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.09.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Köpke, S., Koch, F., Behncke, A. & Balzer, K. (2013) Einstellungen Pflegender in deutschen Krankenhäusern zu einer evidenzbasierten Pflegepraxis [German hospital nurses' attitudes concerning evidence‐based nursing practice]. Pflege, 26 (3), 163 – 175. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1024/1012‐5302/a000289</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuhl, J., Gebhardt, M., Bienstein, P., Käppler, C., Quinten, S., Ritterfeld, U., Tröster, H. & Wember, F. (2017) Implementations for schung als Voraussetzung für eine evidenzbasierte sonderpädagogische Praxis [Implementation research as a prerequisite for evidence‐based special education practice]. Sonderpädagogische Förderung, 62 (4), 383 – 393.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kühne, F., Maas, J. & Weck, F. (2019) Warum nehmen Verhaltenstherapeut_innen an Fortbildungen teil? [why do behavioural therapists participate in continuing education?]. Zeitschrift für Klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie, 48 (4), 219 – 227. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1026/1616‐3443/a000565</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kultusministerkonferenz [KMK]. (2024) Schüler/−innen, Klassen, Lehrkräfte und Absolvierende der Schulen 2013–2022 (Dokumentation Nr. 239) [Pupils, classes, teachers, and graduates of the schools 2013–2022 (Documentation No. 239)]. https://<ulink href="http://www.kmk.org/fileadmin/Dateien/pdf/Statistik/Dokumentationen/Dok%5f239%5fSKL%5f2022.pdf">www.kmk.org/fileadmin/Dateien/pdf/Statistik/Dokumentationen/Dok%5f239%5fSKL%5f2022.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Laubenstein, D. & Scheer, D. (2017) Sonderpädagogik zwischen Wirksamkeitsforschung und Gesellschaftskritik [special education between effectiveness research and criticism of society]. Klinkhardt.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Loehlin, J.C. & Beaujean, A.A. (2017) Latent variable models: an introduction to factor, path, and structural analysis. New York : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lorenzo Seva, U. (2021) Solomon: a method for splitting a sample into equivalent subsamples in factor analysis. Behavior Research Methods, 54 (6), 2665 – 2677. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428‐021‐01750‐y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maio, G. & Haddock, G. (2010) The psychology of attitudes and attitude change. London : SAGE Publications Ltd. Available from: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446214299</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Menz, C., Spinath, B. & Seifried, E. (2021) Misconceptions die hard: prevalence and reduction of wrong beliefs in topics from educational psychology among preservice teachers. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 36 (2), 477 – 494. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212‐020‐00474‐5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Merle, J.L., Cook, C.R., Locke, J.J., Ehrhart, M.G., Brown, E.C., Davis, C.J. et al. (2023) Teacher attitudes toward evidence‐based practices: exploratory and confirmatory analyses of the school‐adapted evidence‐based practice attitude scale. Implementation Research and Practice, 4. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/26334895221151026</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Netemeyer, R.G., Bearden, W.O. & Sharma, S. (2003) Scaling procedures: issues and applications. London : Sage Publications Ltd.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Osborne, J.W. & Fitzpatrick, D.C. (2012) Replication analysis in exploratory factor analysis: what it is and why it makes your analysis better. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 17 (1), 15. Available from: https://doi.org/10.7275/h0bd‐4d11</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paridon, H. & Richter, E. (2021) Evidenzbasiert unterrichten [evidence‐based teaching]. Pflege, 74 (1–2), 42 – 45. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41906‐020‐0938‐x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Parr, J.M. & Timperley, H.S. (2008) Teachers, schools, and using evidence: considerations of preparedness. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 15 (1), 57 – 71. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/09695940701876151</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> R Core Team. (2022) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna : R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.r‐project.org/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ritschl, V., Schönthaler, E., Schwab, P., Strohmer, K., Wilfing, N. & Zettel‐Tomenendal, M. (2015) Evidenzbasierte praxis: Einstellungen, Kompetenzen, Barrieren und Arbeitszufriedenheit österreichischer Ergotherapeuten ‐eine Umfrage [evidence‐based practice: attitudes, competences, barriers and job satisfaction of Austrian occupational therapists‐a survey]. Ergoscience, 10 (3), 97 – 107.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rosenberg, M. & Hovland, C. (1960) Cognitive, affective, and behavioural components of attitudes. In: Rosenberg, M., Hovland, C., McGuire, W., Abelson, R. & Brehm, J. (Eds.) Yale studies in attitude and communication: v. 3. Attitude organization and change: an analysis of consistency among attitude components. New Haven, CT : Yale University Press, pp. 1 – 14.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sackett, D.L., Rosenberg, W.M., Gray, J.A., Haynes, R.B. & Richardson, W.S. (1996) Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. BMJ, 312 (7023), 71 – 72. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.312.7023.71</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Samejima, F. (1969) Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika, 34 (S1), 1 – 97. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03372160</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sansour, T. & Bernhard, D. (2018) Special needs education and inclusion in Germany and Sweden. Alternatives, 12 (3), 127 – 139. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alter.2017.12.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scheer, D., Scholz, M., Rank, A. & Donie, C. (2015) Inclusive beliefs and self‐efficacy concerning inclusive education among German teacher trainees and student teachers. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 14 (3), 270 – 293. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1891/1945‐8959.14.3.270</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schmidt, K., Rosman, T., Cramer, C., Besa, K. & Merk, S. (2022) Teachers trust educational science–especially if it confirms their beliefs. Frontiers in Education, 7, 976556. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.976556</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schwab, S. & Helm, C. (2015) Überprüfung von Messinvarianz mittels CFA und DIF‐Analysen [verification of measurement invariance using CFA and DIF analyses]. Empirische Sonderpädagogik, 7 (3), 175 – 193. Available from: https://doi.org/10.25656/01:11380</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Terhart, E. (2019) Teacher education in Germany. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.377</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thomm, E., Sälzer, C., Prenzel, M. & Bauer, J. (2021) Predictors of teachers' appreciation of evidence‐based practice and educational research findings. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 35 (2–3), 173 – 184. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1024/1010‐0652/a000301</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Trempler, K., Hetmanek, A., Wecker, C., Kiesewetter, J., Wermelt, M., Fischer, F. et al. (2015) Nutzung von Evidenz im Bildungsbereich: Validierung eines instruments zur Erfassung von Kompetenzen der Informationsauswahl und Bewertung von Studien [using evidence in education: validation of an instrument to assess competencies of information selection and evaluation of studies]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 61, 144 – 166. Available from: https://doi.org/10.25656/01:15508</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van Schaik, P., Volman, M., Admiraal, W. & Schenke, W. (2018) Barriers and conditions for teachers' utilisation of academic knowledge. International Journal of Educational Research, 90, 50 – 63. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2018.05.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Widaman, K.F. & Reise, S.P. (1997) Exploring the measurement invariance of psychological instruments: applications in the substance use domain. In: Bryant, K.J., Windle, M.E. & West, S.G. (Eds.) The science of prevention: methodological advances from alcohol and substance abuse research. Washington, D.C. : American Psychological Association, pp. 281 – 324. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1037/10222‐009</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Williams, D. & Coles, L. (2007) Evidence‐based practice in teaching: an information perspective. Journal of Documentation, 63 (6), 812 – 835. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410710836376</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Williamson, R.C., Jasper, A., Novak, J.A., Smith, C.J., Hunter, W.N., Casey, L.B. et al. (2019) Re‐examining evidence based practice in special education: a discussion. The Journal of International Special Needs Education., 22, 54 – 65. Available from: https://doi.org/10.9782/17‐00022</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wu, C., Chano, J., Salim, H. & Kritzer, J.B. (2022) Evidence‐based practices in special education: a reflection on the philosophy, research and teaching. Journal of Education and Learning, 11 (5), 64. Available from: https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v11n5p64</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Lea Rüger and David Scheer</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib177" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref113"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1466370
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: General and Special Education Teachers' Attitudes towards Evidence-Based Practice
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lea+Rüger%22">Lea Rüger</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6927-7636">0000-0002-6927-7636</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22David+Scheer%22">David Scheer</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0534-7869">0000-0002-0534-7869</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Research+in+Special+Educational+Needs%22"><i>Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs</i></searchLink>. 2025 25(2):323-340.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 18
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Special+Education+Teachers%22">Special Education Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Regular+and+Special+Education+Relationship%22">Regular and Special Education Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Attitudes%22">Teacher Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Evidence+Based+Practice%22">Evidence Based Practice</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Test+Construction%22">Test Construction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Questionnaires%22">Questionnaires</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Positive+Attitudes%22">Positive Attitudes</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Germany%22">Germany</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/1471-3802.12727
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1471-3802
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: In the context of special and inclusive education, applying evidence-based practice (EBP) is important for providing equal access to effective and efficient education for students, regardless of their ability status. However, there is a relevant research-practice gap in this area. To better understand how teachers can be supported using evidence-based interventions and to identify training and development needs, we developed a questionnaire on attitudes towards EBP and piloted it with a sample of 809 teachers in Germany. The factor structure was determined using categorical exploratory factor analysis in half of the sample and then confirmed using categorical confirmatory factor analysis in the other half. Good model fit and factor reliability were observed. The instrument is measurement-invariant between general and special education teachers. As expected, we found more positive attitudes towards EBP among special education teachers. No significant differences were observed between the different age groups. Based on these findings, it can be assumed that the measurement instrument is suitable for use in implementation research, as well as in the evaluation of initial and in-service teacher training programmes. Further studies on convergent, divergent and prognostic validities are necessary.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Note
  Label: Notes
  Group: Note
  Data: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/M2ENC
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1466370
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1466370
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/1471-3802.12727
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 18
        StartPage: 323
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Special Education Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Regular and Special Education Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Evidence Based Practice
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Test Construction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Questionnaires
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Positive Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Germany
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: General and Special Education Teachers' Attitudes towards Evidence-Based Practice
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Lea Rüger
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: David Scheer
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 04
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1471-3802
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 25
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs
              Type: main
ResultId 1